horus-flow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'a sorted summary' but doesn't specify what that summary contains, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description is too vague about the actual behavior beyond the basic operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage context, parameter explanation, and example. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the example could be slightly more integrated rather than separate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a tool with no annotations and only one parameter, the description adequately covers the basic operation but lacks depth about behavioral aspects like what 'orderflow signals' specifically means or how the sorting works.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'symbols' is a 'comma-separated list of trading pairs' and provides both a default value and an example showing proper formatting. This compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning multiple cryptocurrencies for orderflow signals and returning a sorted summary. It specifies the verb 'scan' and resource 'cryptocurrencies', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_crypto_flow' or 'get_equity_flow' beyond the multi-asset scanning aspect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage context by stating it's 'useful for finding the strongest buy/sell pressure across multiple assets at once,' which suggests when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide clear alternatives compared to sibling tools like 'get_crypto_flow' (which might be for single assets).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.